Mandatory injunction can recover possession from a revoked licensee, and later third-party title does not defeat the licensor's claim.

A revoked licensee must surrender possession, and a licensor may maintain a suit for mandatory injunction to enforce that duty without insisting on a separate possession action. A subsequent title acquired by the licensee from a third party does not defeat the licensor's claim, because no merger occurs unless title is derived from the licensor or a person claiming under the licensor. Statutory rent protection for the tenant of vacant land was also held not to bar recovery on these facts. The decree in favour of the licensor was restored with costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a licensor can maintain a suit for mandatory injunction to recover possession from a licensee after revocation of the licence. (ii) Whether a licensee who later acquires title to the property from a third party can resist the licensor's claim for possession. (iii) Whether the suit was barred or defeated by the tenant's protection under the rent restriction law.

Issue (i): Whether a licensor can maintain a suit for mandatory injunction to recover possession from a licensee after revocation of the licence.

Analysis: A terminated licensee is under a duty to surrender possession, and a suit for mandatory injunction is maintainable to compel performance of that obligation. The form of the action does not matter where the relief sought is recovery of possession, and a separate suit for possession need not be insisted upon merely to avoid the label of injunction. Delay may affect discretion, but it does not by itself destroy maintainability on the facts found.

Conclusion: The suit for mandatory injunction was maintainable, and the appellant was entitled to relief.

Issue (ii): Whether a licensee who later acquires title to the property from a third party can resist the licensor's claim for possession.

Analysis: After revocation of the licence, the licensee cannot remain in possession by setting up a title acquired subsequently from another source. There is no merger unless the title is acquired from the licensor or from someone lawfully claiming under the licensor. Since the licence had already been revoked and possession had not been surrendered, the later purchase by the respondent did not defeat the appellant's right to recover possession.

Conclusion: The respondent could not resist eviction on the basis of the subsequent purchase, and the appellant's right to possession survived.

Issue (iii): Whether the suit was barred or defeated by the tenant's protection under the rent restriction law.

Analysis: The appellant's tenancy in the original owner's property continued, and the statutory protection against eviction of a tenant of vacant land remained applicable. The respondent's later acquisition did not extinguish the appellant's lease or justify dispossession otherwise than in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The rent restriction law did not bar the appellant's claim for possession in the circumstances.

Final Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to recover possession from the revoked licensee, and the decree in his favour was restored with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A revoked licensee must surrender possession and cannot defeat the licensor's claim by setting up a subsequently acquired title from a third party; a suit for mandatory injunction is maintainable to enforce that obligation.

---